Tuesday, November 11, 2008

I was asked an interesting question today by an Art Institute of California – San Francisco student: “Do you have a [designer} reel?” The student wanted to get an idea of my involvement in the games I’ve worked on. At first I was a bit taken aback by the question because I never really thought much about having a “reel.” What actual material would I put in this reel? Design documents? Level walkthrough? Emails? Notes? Transcripts of conversations? Of course when you think of traditional game industry reels you think of animation or art reels. In an animation reel, you see, well, animations. In a concept art reel, for example, you obviously see concept art.

But what should be the contents of a game designer reel? Do designers even need to create a reel to remain a competitive commodity? Will future employers, the gaming public or even fellow co-workers know exactly what you had a hand in creating if you don’t have a designer reel? Is it enough to be credited on a game as a “designer?” How does a designer “prove” he spearheaded/owned a certain game mechanic or created and maintained certain game systems?

Unless you are Miyamoto, Molyneux, Jaffe, CliffyB, Kojima, etc, many game designers aren’t a well known commodity outside their current employer, even though many of them are instrumental in executing the vision of these high profile names. So, are designer reels necessary to further establish yourself as a game designer if you haven’t reached a certain level of high profile and reputation?

I’m not sure if they are necessary per se, but I don’t see how they would hurt. It seems logical if other game disciplines have reels, why not design? So, if I was to create a designer reel, I would essentially create a personal post mortem with the following:

List of all of the game elements I was responsible for concepting/brainstorming/designing/testing/implementing/tweaking

Video walkthrough/deconstruction of the final product showing the examples of the elements detailing your design intentions (yes, this will be time consuming)

What went wrong/hurdles

What went right

Details: Did I design and implement?; day-to-day duties

Basically, this reel is a resume on steroids that would hopefully give the person(s) watching a better understanding of your worth to the game you had a hand in developing.

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Welcome to the first installment of Street Fighter Lessons! Each lesson will briefly explain one particular element or nuance from the classic fighting game series Street Fighter and then explain how implementing that element into a 3D action-adventure game may improve the overall fun and feel of the player character.

One of the most satisfying moves you can perform on your opponent is the throw. The throw can be used to interrupt combos, setup combos, distance yourself from your opponent or just plain humiliate your opponent. In many Street Fighter games, the throw input command requires the player to press only one button; meaning, the Risk/Reward ratio is Low/High. In addition, you can perform a throw even when your opponent is blocking. (Back in the early days of competitive Street Fighter, throwing an opponent while blocking was considered "cheap." Quite honestly, the best feeling you can have in SF besides beating your opponent is throwing your opponent while he's blocking.)

In early SF games from SF2: World WarriortoSuper SF2 Turbo, the throw range distance was significantly big for many characters. The result: you can throw your opponent from a very far distance even though your character's sprite is nowhere near your opponent's sprite.

Street Fighter Lesson:

In general, the more throw range your character has the more powerful and in control you feel during the fight.

So what does a significant throw range mean for a 3D action-adventure beat-em up? Many gamers still have issues with judging depth correctly. If your player character doesn't have an exaggerated throw range, the player is forced to analyze his surroundings and find the right camera angle to ensure he's next to the enemy, potentially breaking the combat flow. The increased throw range ensures the player doesn't have to consciously recognize if he's in the correct range of the actual character and enemy's geometry.

Below is a screenshot of Kratos about to throw an enemy. Notice the distance from Kratos and the enemy. At this point, the enemy is already in the process of being thrown even though Kratos is not physically near him. If you ever played Dhalsimin Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo, then you know exactly the feeling you have when you perform a throw with this much range.

Thanks to Eric Williams for providing the inspiration to write this post!

In my experiences, being a designer is akin to building jigsaw puzzles (not sure about this analogy, but I'm super tired right now so bear with me). You have all of these different pieces that are scattered about and it is your job to make them fit together into one cohesive and recognizable entity. Each piece enhances the overall entity. Without each individual piece, the overall presentation suffers.

For instance, let's say your a combat designer and it is your job to build enemies that follow the vision of the game. To do this, you'll need the following: brainstorm, direction, model, animations, vfx, sfx, level scenarios ideas (to give the enemy some world relevance), AI building, etc. Obviously, without any of these elements, you won't have any kind of enemy creature. In this case, it is the combat designer's role to ensure that each element associated with this creature adheres to the overall vision of the game the micro vision of the creature itself.

So what does the designer actually do day-to-day in this case? Usually, the elements I listed above are done by an animator, vfx artist, sound designer, etc. So, again, what does the actual designer do? First and foremost, he will possibly use some kind of scripting/pseudo-code program that allows him to manipulate all of these elements in some fashion and “program” the enemy AI to behave according to what is fun and falls under the micro-vision. So, let use this information and create a checklist as to what the designer actually does:

• Uses scripting/pseudo-code program to tell the enemies how to behave (technical skill/aptitude needed here) If you have the ability to master/exploit a tool that has been created specifically for your design role and show that you can “design” or create situations that the programmer never thought possible or intended, then you will be on the right track.

On a side note: Most companies I’ve seen, robust and powerful end-user tools have been created for designers where programming knowledge isn’t necessary. It seems more and more gameplay systems that were once under the realm of the “programmer” are being driven by the non-programmer. In short, the designer becomes the “programmer.” In the end, what does it matter how a gameplay system is maintained, tuned for fun, whether it be through C++ or through some proprietary in-house tool. The results are the same, but some would argue the drive to push control of gameplay systems into non-programmers' hands is much more efficient as it removes the technical barricade and allows those with the creative expertise to make the magic happen.

Is this all the designer does? No. Simply changing a few variables and testing them out to see what is more fun is just part of the role.

Who is making sure that each element falls under the micro vision? Obviously, today’s games are massive so, in this case, it is up to the designer to ensure all of the assembly line elements fit into the micro vision. This requires a basic understanding of each discipline (animation, art, etc.) but more importantly the ability to communicate what is wrong with the individual element and providing possible solutions based on the vision.

• Communication skills and the ability to problem solve and offer solutions that adhere to scope and vision (soft/hard skill)

Knowledge should your weapon of choice for most designers. This can be said for any role in game development, but since the contemporary game designer is usually labeled as possessing only soft skills, then the knowledge you possess as it relates to your specific system or entity can be invaluable. In this case, being able to deconstruct an action adventure combat game and ascertain/extract the systems that make the game fun but also frustrating will help you out tremendously.

• Expertise/insight based on research and/or experience

I think of designers as mini-creative directors responsible for their individual level or system. It is their job to ensure the macro vision is translated correctly into the micro/mid-level elements. Designers are creative and technical problem solvers. The modern designer role is there for a reason. Without designers you would have a bunch of amazing elements but no cohesive presentation and experience.

NOTE: Nowadays, there are many types of designers such as combat, level, sound, camera, mission, story, dialogue, technical, etc...the list goes on and on. The need for specialists within the design discipline is becoming more apparent as games grow larger and larger. If you have a design "skill" and preference, more likely than not there will be a job for you if you dedicate yourself and work hard.

Below are my thoughts after reading Ben Fritz's article in Variety regarding reviewers obsession with the game details and downplaying the game's overall "big picture.":

Video games are unique because they combine other classical forms of entertainment and allow the player to move through these mediums literally and figuratively through gameplay. Gameplay is the driving force because gameplay is what separates video games from other mediums such as television, paintings, books, etc. (Sorry for the Captain Obvious statements.)

Books can make us laugh. Movies too. So can T.V. Video games make us laugh as well, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. If our interactive medium, video games, has done its' job, we were made to laugh because we caused it to make us laugh. Our inputs resulted in an output that caused us to evoke a type of emotion. That's pretty powerful. Instead of passively watching a movie, we were in control and actually physically invested (albeit only with our hands and fingers mostly) into the outcome of our inputs. It took some effort to reach that emotional outburst.

The point I'm trying to make is that gameplay, controls, input/output feedback, AI...the combination of these systems unique only to video games need to, at the very least, collectively be equal in quality to the theme, the art style, the story, the writing, and whatever borrowed mediums are used in shaping the game's vision. They need to be equal because the combination of these systems enhance (or detract) from the game's artistic expression/goal. If anyone of these systems isn't up to par to current systems, the suspension of disbelief will be broken. Flow is broken. Many gamers have been conditioned to sort of recognize what is established quality of any video game system. If any system is out of whack, the artistic goal of the game could be quickly dismissed by the player.

I do agree that there are way too many great scores nowadays. I attribute that to sequelitis as well as "groupthink" as one journalist mentioned in one of her blog posts. At the same time, however, I believe mechanical problems and concerns should be at the forefront of the review as well as the game's "big picture" and the developer's attempt to push the medium into a more well rounded direction. Like you mentioned, there doesn't seem to be a good balance of this as big games don't get called out for obvious, obvious sub-par systems. For example, GTA is notorious for horrible combat systems, gun or melee, but yet inundated with 9s and 9.5s.

Video games are the art of electronic interacting and without the solid mechanical/gameplay/control foundation to drive the intuitive feel of the player, I believe the game's vision is already at a disadvantage of being realized.

Monday, November 3, 2008

I briefly, briefly worked (2 months) on the pre-production prototyping basic environmental interactions

I heard from around the way that there were many, ahem, odd decisions made during the development of this game

I still had hope the game would turn out ok because I somewhat enjoy playing movie licensed kids games

If it did turn out bad, playing a “bad” game is good design exercise…and I haven’t played a really bad game in a while

When I think of the type of consumer that will most likely purchase this game, I think of my aunt and my nephew. My aunt is pretty much one of the best aunts on the planet as she is pretty much an acting mother to my nephews as well to me back in the day. She gives the kids as much love as possible and makes them smile and spoils them in a good way. My aunt will take my nephews to see the latest kids’ movie during the movie’s first week release. And she loves buying the kids the most popular toy characters out there namely anything with the Pixar brand name on it: Cars, Ratatouille, Wall-E.

And if my nephews were a bit older and had the latest and greatest video game consoles, I know for a fact she would buy them the latest and greatest video games based on the kids’ movie they just watched. She would buy the video game because she would think it’s cute because she thought the movie was cute. She’d buy the video game based on the movie of the same name because she wants to bring a smile to the kids’ faces. She would buy this game because she thinks the game would evoke the same type of smiley, wonder, charm, fun and warm fuzzy feeling the movie just gave them. She would buy them the game out of love.

So is it too much to ask for the game developers making these types of licensed kids’ games to reciprocate the love and inject the same type of tender loving care into the quality of the product they release?

I’m not going to go into detail about what’s wrong with this game. There’s simply too much to say in that regard. The point is: Is there anyone thinking of the kids and the mothers (or aunts) when these types of games are being developed? Sadly, the answer is usually no.

About Me

In my seven years in the video game industry, I’ve been a video game tester, Tips and Tricks Magazine freelance strategy guide writer and game designer. In addition to my professional experience, I’m a competitive expert-level Street Fighter player. I've also held the world record in the Daytona USA arcade racing game as well as a few other games. Currently, I'm a Combat Designer at SCEA Studios Santa Monica having worked on God of War 3 from beginning to end.